A look at Apple’s love for DRM and consumer lock-ins

Apple makes great products—you'll get no argument from us. But Apple also …

Apple is a company known for many things, but embracing copyright freedoms has not been one of them. The company loves creating new and innovative products that challenge the world's perception of what it thought it wanted, but it then turns around and aggressively protects those products from being poked or prodded too much by curious onlookers. Some believe Apple is in the right to do this, while others feel the company could set a better example when it comes to using (or abusing) copyright legislation for its own self-serving purposes.

This is a topic that recently came up during our Premier Subscriber chat with Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Fred von Lohmann. von Lohmann pointed out that Google—a company that is often compared to Apple—has been at the forefront of the pro-innovation copyright agenda, fighting the good fight on behalf of tech companies and their users for many years. When it comes to Apple... not so much. The two companies could not be more different. Let's take a moment to summarize some of Apple's latest pro-DRM and pro-DMCA moves.

Apple <3s DRM

Apple has insisted for years that it would embrace an entirely DRM-free world if music, movie, and TV producers would get behind it. Those walls have largely been broken down when it comes to selling some forms of media (namely music), but Apple isn't exactly anti-DRM in any other sense. Aside from still offering DRM-laden movies and TV shows on iTunes (which can reasonably be attributed to content producers), Apple itself is happy to employ DRM to keep its own products from being used in unapproved ways.

The most obvious is the fact that the company uses DRM to guarantee that iPods and iPhones can't be used with any other software besides iTunes. Not only that, but Apple also uses technology to block out non-Apple devices from syncing with iTunes—� la the Palm Pre saga.

Given the above, Apple's stance against iPhone jailbreakers isn't too surprising. Jailbreaking allows third parties to create applications and add additional functionality to the iPhone that wouldn't otherwise be allowed, including running background applications and inevitably unlocking the device to be used on unapproved carriers.

Apple argues that this kind of activity is against the DMCA and should be illegal. Why? Because jailbreaking, to Apple, means circumvention of DRM, and why would anyone want to circumvent DRM except to do illegal activities? In its argument to Congress earlier this year, Apple said that the "class of works" (that is, unapproved software) that would come out of jailbroken iPhones infringe on Apple's copyrights—not to mention that such an activity could lead to the total and utter meltdown of the cellular network.

The EFF, on the other hand, says that neither jailbreaking nor installing legally produced programs would violate Apple's copyrights, and that's why jailbreaking should continue to be allowed under the DMCA (at least for the next three years). And, let's be honest here: there are relatively few iPhone users in the world who even want to jailbreak their phones. The threat of a hostile takeover by people using rogue iPhones is practically nonexistent, but Apple wants to exercise its control over all users, not just most of them.

Apple vs. people talking on the Internet

Again, this builds upon Apple's overall stance on DRM and users "breaking" it. Earlier this year, Apple took action on that stance by making legal threats against the company behind BluWiki, OdioWorks LLC, after members posted information discussing how to use the iPod with third-party software. Apple accused OdioWorks of disseminating information to circumvent Apple's DRM and enabling copyright infringement by hosting the pages on iTunesDB, which Apple believed was in violation of the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA.

OdioWorks first complied, and then filed a lawsuit against Apple in order to defend the rights of its users. "Companies like Apple should not be able to censor online discussions by making baseless legal threats against services like BluWiki that host the discussion," OdioWorks owner Sam Odio said in a statement at the time.

The company asked the court for a judgment saying the discussion didn't violate the DMCA, but that challenge never got a chance to be tested in court—Apple decided to back off in July, notifying the company that it was withdrawing its takedown notifications. However, this wasn't the success that some had hoped for, as Apple didn't withdraw because of anyone's First Amendment rights. "Apple has stopped utilizing the code in question, rendering the code obsolete for the purposes at issue in this action. Publishing that code is no longer of any harm or benefit to anyone," the company said in its letter.

This means that if someone decided to post a new discussion to BluWiki discussing how to use the iPod with third-party software under Apple's new authentication methods, such threats could (and probably will) bubble up again.

It won't be over anytime soon

These are just a few (albeit major) examples of the steps Apple has taken to squelch open discussion and tinkering with its products, despite the fact that these activities barely affect the company's bottom line. Though most of Apple's customers don't know or care about these issues, they do affect us all to some degree or another—especially if Apple tries to use the DMCA in what some consider to be abusive ways. It certainly seems that Apple has embraced the concept of using DRM for the purposes of control, and this behavior is likely to continue for a long time.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time to go make a call on my iPhone while watching some movies on my Apple TV.

191 Reader Comments

Apple has insisted for years that it would embrace an entirely DRM-free world if music, movie, and TV producers would get behind it.

Apple has for years insisted that it would embrace an entirely DRM-free music world if record labels would get behind it. If Apple has ever said that it wants to sell DRM-free movies, then please provide a quote. I'm pretty sure they never have.

Apple sucks ass, their "Genius" bar is filled with retards and they are generally worse than MS. How they aren't nailed for "bundling" their software like what has and is happening to MS here and in the EU never ceases to amaze me. They sell inferior products and at outlandish prices.

This iphone sucks ass and has been a series of headaches. I can't wait to get rid of this iPOS. Apple and Steve handJob can take a hike. I can't wait for their evil empire to crumble but alas, even Ars is sucked into the RDF that is apple. My grandfather even bought an iMac and I keep on having to help him because official support can't seem to do it. I have a good amount of stories about all the problems with apple products of people I know who own them. Amazing how everything is just supposed to "work" with apple but in fact it really doesn't. Like any computer it will ALWAYS have problems. the iphone is my first and last apple product ever. Especially since the iphone drives constantly crash my friggin computer all the time. So much for that A+ apple programming.

this is the most ridiculously biased article I have read on ars for some time.

regarding the DRM'd content - driven entirely by the content industry

regarding the DRM'd content devices - you guys stop to think that it might be also driven by the content industry? i'm working with people in the content industry right now and it's a well known fact that they are using DRM as a competitive lever - hence why Amazon got DRM removed before Apple

Palm and iTunes. I'm not sure I really object to Apple going out of their way to flick the finger at Palm, especially after Palm was caught breaking the rules and poaching employees. Also, RIM, Microsoft, Nokia all make their own software to run their devices; what makes Palm special? If they wanted to use Apple software to sync the Pre, I think the standard thing to do would have been to go to Apple and ask for a deal. It's not like we're talking about an Operating System or some piece of software held out as an open standard.

hdcp is the same deal. the video content creators (TV/Movie) have seen how well Apple have done with iTunes, and they're forcing as many restrictions down Apple's throat as possible with regards to the AppleTV and iTunes. Hence why they are so incredibly hobbled compared to other devices

the fight against jailbreaking is done as a business decision - AT&T are paying for the exclusive right to have the iPhone on their network, but if the phone is sold globally without that restriction it's pretty hard for AT&T to do it, right? the problem here isn't Apple, it's the US law that allows this to happen. Given the law, Apple has made a business decision that allows it to maximise profit.

From the article: These are just a few (albeit major) examples of the steps Apple has taken to squelch open discussion and tinkering with its products, despite the fact that these activities barely affect the company's bottom line.

Maybe these activities don't have a huge impact on the bottom line, but if Apple did nothing about the things you point out, they would have a huge impact on Apple's business activities - Apple would lose an immense amount of content from the content suppliers. Any company, particularly a leading company, which is seen to be soft on IP/DRM will almost instantly lose the support of the software providers.

The problem in this case isn't Apple. The problem in this case is the stupid DMCA that allows content creators to force stupid restrictions on hardware manufacturers. Apple has only proven more than happy to ignore DRM etc when they can - for example, removing DRM from music sold on the iTunes store and having absolutely zero DRM on all its operating systems.

Oh, baloney. Apple's for anything that would 'enhance their ecosystem' and lock people in to their products. Not allowing competitors to utilize what's good about your platforms, making sure that people 'only get the whole package', it's all about selling product.

Don't forget all the MacOS Clone Makers in the 90's. First, officially supported. Then, rug pulled out from under them.

Look at what happened to all the Apple independent resellers after the advent of the Apple stores.

@tscola - good point. Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I've heard Apple publicly state it's DRM views for anything other than music.

I have an Apple TV and I don't purchase movies on it. I don't like the DRM. That said I don't mind that the Apple TV is DRM capable, I do rent a lot of movies from the iTunes store. It makes sense to me that such copies be protected some how. Even if the whole DRM concept is flawed it will keep the average user from the temptation to make a permanent copy for themselves.

I don't think the technology behind the iPod synchronising in iTunes would be as convoluted as it is now if it hadn't have been for other companies trying to get a free ride with the software for their own purposes. Apple only seem to have changed the synchronisation method when others have tried to mess with it. I'm thinking of Real Media and Palm right now.

the fight against jailbreaking is done as a business decision - AT&T are paying for the exclusive right to have the iPhone on their network, but if the phone is sold globally without that restriction it's pretty hard for AT&T to do it, right? the problem here isn't Apple, it's the US law that allows this to happen. Given the law, Apple has made a business decision that allows it to maximise profit.

This last point evaluates as 'it's the law's fault for allowing the practice', which is just laughable. Being allowed to do a thing does not compel one to do that thing.

Frankly I'm not so inclined to believe your other points either, but I'd be interested in at least hearing more substantive arguments supporting them.

Pretty poor article overall, with a disingenuous mix of stuff that is common to all tech companies (not just Apple) and stuff that is just plain wrong. As the previous poster noted, Apple talked about DRM-free music, not digital content as a whole. Even the ARS article that you linked to (presumably to try and prove your point?) only talks about music.Also, where's your evidence that Apple's use of DRM on movie/TV content is any less to do with the film studios than their use of DRM in music was at the behest of the record labels? Steve Jobs' open letter about DRM-free music was a tactical move, but it was one made with the knowledge that he would be on the right side of public opinion. There was some quite vocal and high-profile grumbling about the mess that the digital music market was in due to things like the Plays For Sure fiasco. There hasn't really been any equivalent to that in the digital movie downloads arena, but that's probably only because the market isn't big enough yet; most people still get their movies on physical discs. As soon as that changes, expect similar unrest when people try to move their purchased movies from their Apple TV to their Playstation 3. Expect an open "Thoughts on Movies" letter from Steve Jobs when that happens.Was your mention of the Palm Pre "saga" just trolling, or do you really think that was simply about Apple's controlling tendencies, as opposed to Palm being too arrogant/stupid/lazy to use the published methods for syncing with the iTunes database, just like Blackberry and other companies do quite happily?The rest of the article is mostly just cobblers.

honestly, i think it is the law's fault for allowing the practice. the basis for capitalism is allowing businesses to pursue profit maximization within the bounds of what is acceptable by society. at&t are paying apple $200 or something similar per iphone sold; apple are doing pretty well out of it.

apple aren't doing it to screw their users over - they're doing it to make the phone as profitable as possible. If we, as a society, don't like the fact that a deal can be struck where a specific piece of hardware is tied to a carrier, then we should do what the french have done and make it illegal. it's the same rationale as what is used to ban monopolies.

in the meantime, i'm not sure we should knock apple for profit maximizing. This is as opposed to doing it to "screw users", which is what the article suggests apple is doing. The reality is a heap of phones are sim locked, and the main reason most iphone competitors are not sim locked is simply because none of them are attractive enough to warrant offering a similar deal to the one Apple got.

and WHO ALLOWED the legal framework to protect all the drm madness ? Mighty Warner ? Invincible Sony ? NO ! the politicians.

so stop trying to spread bias and useless debate.

These computers companies have to sell contents the way content creators wish.

Yeah, Blueray is really a bag of pain for computing, so apple is staying far from it, Hurray, Apple is a Champion of liberty ! haAA the Great Apple ! okay... so no HD 1080p movies on mac at _all_...

(I don"t say apple is wrong on that, but you have to understand, computers companies, heck even medias companies or studios are not so free, they have to obey to producers and copyright holders. Yes, Apple can use its weight, thanks to itunes store, but apple is not so powerful)

Originally posted by jamesa:in the meantime, i'm not sure we should knock apple for profit maximizing. This is as opposed to doing it to "screw users", which is what the article suggests apple is doing. The reality is a heap of phones are sim locked, and the main reason most iphone competitors are not sim locked is simply because none of them are attractive enough to warrant offering a similar deal to the one Apple got.

I'm not knocking them for maximizing profits. Of course that's a mission for any business. But there are multiple strategies for doing so - some longterm, some short-term. Clearly Google are a very different business, but note their strategy of reducing lockin whenever possible.

For example, Apple won't allow DRM-less audiobooks in the iTMS, even if the author wishes to and Audible agrees.

so, i could be wrong, but i'm not sure it's as simple as you make out - given my experience with content providers, i would not be surprised if audible is forcing that on apple as a restriction of apple getting audible's content.

I too hate DRM and wish apple would take a more aggressive stance against it. But to claim that Apple is pro DRM is completely insane. Apple has stood apart from the rest of the industry precisely because it doesn't implement copy protection schemes for it's own IP. It has only implemented DRM to protect the IP of business partners. And even then, only at the request of those business partners.

The underlying goal of the article is admirable, to change public perception of what the proper balance of power is between consumers and corporations. But targeting apple is counter productive. Examples should be made of the most anti-consumer corporations instead of one that is incredibly consumer friendly.

I have to say by reading the comments you can definitely tell who the Apple fanboys are. Especially when they start saying how Ars has a bias against Apple. I'm a big fan of this site but have always thought that it's pretty clear that there is a bit of a bias in favor of Apple.

What really amazes me, and I've seen similar comments in the effect of, is that a lot of people see Microsoft as the devil and Apple as the new messiah when both companies do business in the same manner. In areas where they're the underdog they push for openness. In areas where they're dominant they try and lock everything down and force people to do things their way as much as possible.

Regarding the BluWiki thing, I think you guys are reading it wrong. The reason Apple backed off wasn't because the code was obsolete. Even if it was, they still had the incentive to continue the lawsuit if they thought they could win it because a) the code wasn't obsolete at the time b) it will put such a decision into the body of common law and c) it has a chilling effect on this type of activity. The reason they backed off was probably because they realized they couldn't win the case, and rather than be handed a defeat which would hurt Apple severely in both PR and future court cases, they decided to draw back. Make up some excuse that sounded plausible (which judging from the fact that you guys are just parroting it, seems to have worked). Then, in the future, go after other instances of this same thing. Keep doing this until they find a case they're sure they can win. Then they can use that to bolster future cases. Remember, corporations have these lawyers on retainer. They aren't going to withdraw from a lawsuit because of money issues. The money's already spent. They're only going to withdraw if they think there's a good chance they'll lose.

Also, seriously people? Are you really so blinded by Apple love that you somehow think that these activities are justified when Apple does it? It doesn't matter if they're trying to "get back" at Palm, or if the big evil content companies use DRM. The fact is, Apple supports DRM heavily on their own products when it's completely unnecessary to do so, when they have no obligation by other companies (including the dreaded "Big Content") to do so. You simply can't get around that. It doesn't matter what slim rays of hope Apple provides in other fields. It especially doesn't matter that Apple tries to break down DRM on other people's products Of course they're going to try to do that, EVERYONE'S going to try to do that to be able to utilize competitor's products and services to their own advantage, except in rare cases like "Big Content". It only matters what they do to their own product. And to their own products, it's DRM all around.

Originally posted by adminfoo:I'm not knocking them for maximizing profits. Of course that's a mission for any business. But there are multiple strategies for doing so - some longterm, some short-term. Clearly Google are a very different business, but note their strategy of reducing lockin whenever possible.

so i agree with that statement, but i disagree with the underlying implication around motives. the article makes out that apple are locking users in to screw them; and i think you are implying google are not locking in users because they have better intentions. i think a better way of looking at it would be how the companies make money; apple do it off hardware. i would argue that they rarely restrict what a user can do with that hardware unless it is forced on them by a 3rd party. on the other hand, if they see people trying to leverage their work on software to make a competitive piece of hardware (e.g. palm), then they get pretty aggressive - and i think fair enough.

on the other hand, google pretty much relies on huge scale to fuel its advertising business. hence it opens things up and gives them away. but you get ads everywhere. it's just a different way of making money.

I too hate DRM and wish apple would take a more aggressive stance against it. But to claim that Apple is pro DRM is completely insane. Apple has stood apart from the rest of the industry precisely because it doesn't implement copy protection schemes for it's own IP. It has only implemented DRM to protect the IP of business partners. And even then, only at the request of those business partners.

The underlying goal of the article is admirable, to change public perception of what the proper balance of power is between consumers and corporations. But targeting apple is counter productive. Examples should be made of the most anti-consumer corporations instead of one that is incredibly consumer friendly.

I too hate DRM and wish apple would take a more aggressive stance against it. But to claim that Apple is pro DRM is completely insane. Apple has stood apart from the rest of the industry precisely because it doesn't implement copy protection schemes for it's own IP. It has only implemented DRM to protect the IP of business partners. And even then, only at the request of those business partners.

The underlying goal of the article is admirable, to change public perception of what the proper balance of power is between consumers and corporations. But targeting apple is counter productive. Examples should be made of the most anti-consumer corporations instead of one that is incredibly consumer friendly.

You said it better than I could, so I'll just quote you and be done with it.

Apple has insisted for years that it would embrace an entirely DRM-free world if music, movie, and TV producers would get behind it.

Apple has for years insisted that it would embrace an entirely DRM-free music world if record labels would get behind it. If Apple has ever said that it wants to sell DRM-free movies, then please provide a quote. I'm pretty sure they never have.

Jobs as well as the CEO of Disney have multiple times discussed the DRM issue with video. Jobs has stated he believed MOVIES (not all video) are a seperate issue, due to existing CSS encoding and common practices encrypting nearly all currently distributed video content, but they HAVE discussed removing DRM from TV and other video. The problem is the same as it was for Music. iTunes has to use DRM until Apple can convince the providers to do otherwise. They currently have about 10% of the market, not the same footing they had when they were 50% of the music business and could push providers around. in fact, they recently caved and increaded movie prices to KEEP that business. Forcing DRM is not going to happen until iTunes becomes a commonly accepted source for doing so. (and until they include every feature on a DVD, including all the special content, or drop the prices dramatically, that's not going to happen, and the producers are currently FINE with that).

Sony, for instance, just keeps on tryin'. Sometimes it works for them (my Sony TV only takes f***ing sony USB sticks if you want to view photos, WTF?) and sometimes it doesn't.

Apple would not be doing its shareholders justice if it didn't at least try to do the lock-in thing.

Gillette and razor blades, what's the difference?

DRM free is not a "right". It's a legitimate business tactic. Get over it. Please whinge all you like about it, but expect people like me slap their foreheads and read an article not written by a troll.

Originally posted by juanxer:For example, Apple won't allow DRM-less audiobooks in the iTMS, even if the author wishes to and Audible agrees.

That's a current restriction based on the technology. Allowing the device to support both locked and unlocked files, and a store and backend infrastructure that supprts it, is no small change. But the real issue; it's political. By supporting non-DRM books from one firm, Apple risks loosing the ausiobooks from the others, which are much bigger and a larger share of the audiobook revenue.

As the comment section shows, Apple has the most brainwashed fanboys of any huge conscienceless multi-national around. The fact that people have an emotional attachment to their products that is as strong as it is makes me wonder what kind of VooDoo their marketing genius are practising. I mean people actually arguing that Apple isn't the mother of all computer vendor lock-ins with the accompanying legal threats, DRM, and bully tactics?

Sony, for instance, just keeps on tryin'. Sometimes it works for them (my Sony TV only takes f***ing sony USB sticks if you want to view photos, WTF?) and sometimes it doesn't.

Apple would not be doing its shareholders justice if it didn't at least try to do the lock-in thing.

Gillette and razor blades, what's the difference?

DRM free is not a "right". It's a legitimate business tactic. Get over it. Please whinge all you like about it, but expect people like me slap their foreheads and read an article not written by a troll.

The thing is, some deceived individuals actually think Apple is a 'good' company, and not a do-whatever-it-takes profit machine. Articles like this serve to put the truth out there for people to see.

Of course, there are always people like you who don't like it when the lights get turned on, and resort to lame ass cliched insults like 'troll'.

A corporation as creative as Apple Inc would have nothing to fear from the entire dropping of DRM - Apple's appeal reaches far beyond the mere protection of patents etc. As such it is well placed for a future in which this measure is implemented. The problem still remains as to how to create a system that rewards originality and curtails copycats and freeloaders that make up 99% of this planet's lazy, unethical, unimaginative and uninspired (sub)human population? A casual glance at anything: the App store, the consumer electronics market, industrial espionage, the sweatshops of the Far East, music, art, you name it simply reinforces this bitter, unpalatable but undeniable FACT.

Corporations like Google who do not derive their revenue from the direct sale of creativity to the consumer can easily hide behind the façade of supporting the abolition of DRM and the opening up of source code because it does not undercut their profit margin - that is, until someone comes along and hands their arse to them at their own game, at which time the Leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy, will raise its ugly pate.

The underlying goal of this article has no merit, save to play to the gallery of the illiterate (or at best, semi-literate) underclass that permeate the so-called blogosphere like a cankerworm.

Originally posted by atryus28:Apple sucks ass, their "Genius" bar is filled with retards and they are generally worse than MS. How they aren't nailed for "bundling" their software like what has and is happening to MS here and in the EU never ceases to amaze me.

Apple's market share isn't big enough to be considered a monopoly, therefore, they are allowed to bundle their software.

Originally posted by Fritz Gerlich:The thing is, some deceived individuals actually think Apple is a 'good' company, and not a do-whatever-it-takes profit machine. Articles like this serve to put the truth out there for people to see.

Of course, there are always people like you who don't like it when the lights get turned on, and resort to lame ass cliched insults like 'troll'.

hey, easy on the ad-homs, huh?

in terms of apple being a good company, i think the proof is in the pudding - take a look at their user satisfaction ratings. i don't think there is a metric that matters more for a tech company when it comes to whether they do right by their customers or not.

if you think that they place importance on user satisfaction - and even people that don't like apple usually agree that apple do care about this - then ask yourself, why would a company put DRM on a product to hurt its customers?

the answer is: they wouldn't. and where they can avoid it, they don't. and that is why it is not in their OS (MS could learn a thing or two from this), and why it is no longer on music from the iTunes store. and it is why they wouldn't have it on video or anything else they sell from the itunes store (but for the content providers who force it on them, and have the protection enshrined in the dmca).

the remainder of the DRM that apple have - for example, the DRM that stops palm from syncing the pre - doesn't affect apple customers. it only affects customers of companies that cut corners. (e.g. notice how RIM hasn't had a problem syncing with iTunes?)

so - my argument - apple want to give customers the best experience possible. the DRM that sucks for Apple's customers is driven by 3rd parties. the DRM that sucks for non-customers is driven by the fact that Apple doesn't really care that much about people who aren't customers or who aren't potential customers. If your criticism of Apple is that they don't care enough about non-customers, well, yep, maybe true.

I never understand customers who seem to demand that companies (Apple in this case) ignore their needs, wants, or requirements in the name of profits. I understand shareholders doing that, but not customers.

Apple does have some bizarre pointless restrictions baked into their hardware and software. It's as if they're obsessed with piracy even when they're doing better than they ever have before. They're making more money, have more customers and yet they nickel and dime those customers for pennies.

Examples of strange limitations are: Why can't I use an iPhone as USB storage. Why can't I install whatever application I want on an iPod touch. Why is iTunes tied only to iPods.

The justifications for these decisions are paranoid delusions about piracy, cell phone terrorists, and profitability. These are meritless excuses, and Apple is just insulting my intelligence. I think those who defend these excuses are sad pathetic fools.

For example: How is that other phones allow me to use them as storage devices, won't I destroy the cell phone network with those phones instead of an iPhone. How come every other computer device I own can run whatever programs I install on it, even if I have to write them myself. How is that every other media provider can make a profit without leveraging a line of hardware with relatively high profit margins.

While I don't have an iPod, iPhone, and I hardly use iTunes on my Macbook, I can't help but feel for those who are frustrated that companies they love and financially support, and yet feel marginalized by corporate profiteering at their expense.

It feels disingenuous for a corporation to tell me that I can't do something I want because that damages their bottom line by a few cents. I know what I want, I always want more. I rarely get it. In Apple's case I could get pretty close, the products they offer are compelling in a number of ways. The level of polish is very high. The tradeoff is that I have to live with arbitrary restrictions imposed by Apple, without even good reasons to salve my frustration.

The contrast with Google is misplaced. Google isn't any better. Both companies want to externalize all their costs, and maximize their revenue sources.

Google wants less copyright restrictions because it doesn't generate content itself, only the tools to share, and connect other peoples content. It wants more freedom to sell advertising without having to moderate either the content the advertising is bundled with, or the advertising itself. Apple wants to have it's own little hardware playground all to itself.

In the end the big difference is that Google wants us to like them, despite how suspiciously they write down everything we do. Apple demands we love them unconditionally, and don't ask questions, just trust them, they know best.

Wow, good to see the computer flamewars are still in effect and Ars is here to stoke the flames, with their pro-Apple columnist of all people. Don't you see that this article was written specifically to irritate you tech nerds so you would write ridiculous comments that compel people to visit the site and click their ads?

Usually this tactic is fine, since most of Ars' articles are written well, but this one is topical, poorly researched, and designed to get the nerd herd into a tizzy.

Originally posted by clackerd:Wow, good to see the computer flamewars are still in effect and Ars is here to stoke the flames, with their pro-Apple columnist of all people. Don't you see that this article was written specifically to irritate you tech nerds so you would write ridiculous comments that compel people to visit the site and click their ads?

Usually this tactic is fine, since most of Ars' articles are written well, but this one is topical, poorly researched, and designed to get the nerd herd into a tizzy.

I don't disagree. But this is the only forum we have to complain about functionality, and accompanying hypocrisy from Apple PR. It's not like there is any point complaining directly to Apple about it.